• Waldhuette@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They are very efficient yes. But at the same time they aren’t very reliable. If everyone was running an F1 style engine and would have to replace loads of parts constantly we would be in a much worse spot.

    If it was such a good system don’t you think we would already have such engines in regular cars ? There’s a reason why we don’t. Because these systems only work when that engine has to only run for little time in very confined scenarios.

    • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They aren’t very reliable because they run at the ragged limits. It is a competition, after all. Motorsport has always been like that, nothing to do with current PU tech.

      The reason we don’t use them in regular cars is because it’s expensive to make, and combustion engines are being phased out anyway.

        • Claidheamh@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, running engines at the limits makes things less efficient, which is why on fuel-limited tracks you see a lot of lift and coast and turning down engine modes when that was a thing.

          The efficiency comes from having two different complex energy recovery systems, which is what makes them expensive to transfer to the road.

          Still, you’d see more real world applications if countries’ carbon regulations were tighter.